Axel Bojanowski has written a piece at the online Spiegel titled “Madness of the Do-Gooders” where he reviews Hans von Storch’s and Werner Krauss’s new book: “Die Klimafalle” (The Climate Trap), which has harsh words for climate alarmism.
Many of the harsh words are aimed, not surprisingly, at Germany’s notoriously alarmist and catastrophe-obsessed Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which is directed by Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.
Bojanowski brings up many of the points that I brought up in an earlier post here, e.g. that the “climate debate has reached a dead-end“, that “the science is suffering from a credibility crisis“, and that some scientists like Schellnhuber have “taken on the role of prophets“.
Bojanowski adds other points, first reminding us that there is no consensus on the science and that opinions run across the board. He emphasizes that von Storch and Krauss do not want in any way to play down the seriousness of climate change: “Climate change is a serious problem“. Yes, that’s especially true if the world is preparing for the completely wrong scenario.
Bojanowski quotes von Storch and Krauss concerning the politics and science:
Climate science has been kidnapped by politicians who claim their decisions are already prescribed by science and therefore are without alternatives.”
Von Storch also calls the IPCC climate report a “joint production by science and politics.” Bojanowski adds: “Scientists have succumbed to the temptation of shaping policy“.
Von Storch makes one assertion I think needs to be responded to. He says he is in no way on the same side as the climate skeptics, and tends to label both sides of the debate as disgraceful. The problem here is the narrow fashion in which von Storch and Krauss view the debate to start with. They view it as non-believers vs devout believers, when in truth it’s a debate of many non-catastrophe believers vs a small group of fanatic catastrophists.
Indeed there are many luke-warmers who believe in greenhouse-gas warming among the “skeptics”. Many have no interests at all, except in finding the truth. Here von Storch and Krauss commit a huge disservice in throwing legitimate skeptics in the same bag with denier wingnuts.
On the subject of consensus, Bojanowski writes that reaching consensus is the duty of policymakers, and not scientists.
One of the main targets of von Storch’s and Krauss’s book is the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the WBGU, which advises the German government on climate issues. The WBGU’s 9 members come solely from catastrophe-obsessed institutes, like the Potsdam Institute, and call for a rash, complete overhaul of the global economy in order to ward off a “dangerous climate change“. Von Storch and Krauss criticize this, rightfully claiming: “No grand global plan can bring about the solution.”
Bojanowski writes in the end that the advisers at the Potsdam Institute have made it very clear they will not comment on von Storch’s and Krauss’s critical book. “The PIK scientists recently published a comic book that explains the ‘Great Transformation’ to children – with the PIK advisers themselves as comic heroes.”
That sums it up nicely.